Angelo Self v. City of Palm Springs

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 1, 2023
Docket5:21-cv-01879
StatusUnknown

This text of Angelo Self v. City of Palm Springs (Angelo Self v. City of Palm Springs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Angelo Self v. City of Palm Springs, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 jJeErRryRstYee Lri.n SgT@EyEaRhoINo.Gco, mB a r No. 22509 2 LAW OFFICE OF JERRY L. STEERING 4063 Birch Street, Suite 100 3 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 474-1849 4 Facsimile: (949) 474-1883

5 GREGORY PEACOCK, Bar No. 277669 gregorypeacockesq@gmail.com 6 LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY PEACOCK 4425 Jamboree Road, Suite 130 7 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 292-7478 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 ANGELO SELF

10 RICHARD T. EGGER, Bar No. 162581 richard.egger@bbklaw.com 11 MICHAEL J. THIES, Bar No. 323666 michael.thies@bbklaw.com 12 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 400 13 Ontario, California 91761 Telephone: (909) 989-8584 14 Facsimile: (909) 944-1441 15 Attorneys for Defendants PAOLA RAMOS and 16 JONATHAN CABRERA 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 ANGELO SELF, Case No. 5:21-cv-01879-JWH (SPx) 21 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY MATTER 22 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 23 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS; PAOLA RAMOS; JONATHAN CABRERA; and 24 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 25 Defendants. 26

27 28 1 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 5 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 6 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 7 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 8 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 9 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 10 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 11 11.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 12 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures 13 that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 14 permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 This action will involve confidential and sensitive information for which 17 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 18 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and sensitive information 19 will likely consist of, among, other things, peace officer personnel records. These 20 records are confidential and privileged under California State law. California Penal 21 Code §§ 832.7 and 832.8; California Evidence Code § 1043 et seq. They are 22 conditionally privileged under federal common law. Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 23 292, 299 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (quoting Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 24 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) [“Federal common law recognized a qualified privilege for 25 official information. (Citation Omitted.) Government personnel files are considered 26 official information.”]). Federal courts also recognize a constitutionally based right 27 of privacy in relation to personnel records. Keith H. v. Long Beach Unified School 28 Dist., 228 F.R.D. 652, 657 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Accordingly, numerous courts have held 1 such information is to be produced subject to a “tightly drawn” protective order. 2 Kelly v. City of San Jose, 113 F.R.D. 653, 666 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Miller, 141 F.R.D. 3 at 301; Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 614 (N.D. Cal. 1995.) 4 In addition to peace officer personnel records, this action will likely involve 5 other confidential or sensitive information, including police and fire investigative 6 reports, and medical records, that are generally unavailable to the public, or which 7 may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 8 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 9 Use or disclosure of the information produced in this action for purposes other 10 than prosecution or defense of the case will likely result in harm to the persons to 11 whom the information relates because it will result in a loss of privacy and may cause 12 undue harassment, embarrassment, or other harm. 13 As a result, in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 14 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 15 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 16 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 17 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 18 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 19 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 20 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 21 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there 22 is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 23 1. DEFINITIONS 24 1.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 25 1.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 26 of information or items under this Order. 27 1.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 28 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 2 Cause Statement. 3 1.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 4 their support staff). 5 1.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 6 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 7 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 8 1.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 9 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 10 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 11 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 12 1.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 13 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 14 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 15 1.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 16 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 17 counsel. 18 1.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 19 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 20 1.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 21 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 22 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 23 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 24 1.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 25 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 26 support staffs). 27 1.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 28 Discovery Material in this Action. 1 1.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 2 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 3 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 4 and their employees and subcontractors.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Keith H. v. Long Beach Unified School District
228 F.R.D. 652 (C.D. California, 2005)
Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
936 F.2d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Medlin v. Andrew
113 F.R.D. 650 (M.D. North Carolina, 1987)
Schenk v. Mine Management Co.
141 F.R.D. 3 (N.D. New York, 1992)
Schick v. Ernst & Young
141 F.R.D. 23 (S.D. New York, 1992)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Angelo Self v. City of Palm Springs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angelo-self-v-city-of-palm-springs-cacd-2023.